> In all fairness, I must ask the question: How is creating an open
> source version of .net (Mono) -- with or without microsoft's help --
> different from creating an open source version of microsoft networking (
> Samba ) complete with all microsoft's non-compliant SMB extensions?
>
> My guts heave at the idea of a .net for Linux but then where would we be
> today without Samba? Didn't Samba PREVENT people from being locked into
> microsoft products for file and print services? Could Mono be another
> Samba?
>
Uhhmm.. maybe it's the paranoid in me talking, but did you ever think
that they did this for the same reason that they bought 25% of Apple?
They keep a competitor alive just enough to get the government off their
backs. They help out Mono to create "competition," a fight to which they
make up all the rules and hold most of the cards. I doubt that they do
this for anythign else than 2 reasons:
1) They need to stop being visibly monopolistic
2) they want to get more "free labor" a-la *BSD.
*getting out of paranoid mode*
Norb
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:08:33 EDT